What did you end up with? I have a bunch of zero rules for these yet still keep getting the "administrative notice" from sbl/zen.
The fact that those guys don't just send out a "yes, this is on by default in spamassassin, here is copy pasta to turn us off" email bugs me. I've grown to this huge list and still get the warnings. # remove spamhaus tests, they want us to pay # need to include the first base rule or DNS still triggers but is ignored score __RCVD_IN_ZEN 0 score RCVD_IN_SBL 0 score RCVD_IN_XBL 0 score RCVD_IN_PBL 0 score URIBL_SBL 0 score URIBL_CSS 0 score URIBL_SBL_A 0 score URIBL_CSS_A 0 score URIBL_DBL_SPAM 0 score URIBL_DBL_PHISH 0 score URIBL_DBL_MALWARE 0 score URIBL_DBL_BOTNETCC 0 score URIBL_DBL_ABUSE_SPAM 0 score URIBL_DBL_ABUSE_REDIR 0 score URIBL_DBL_ABUSE_PHISH 0 score URIBL_DBL_ABUSE_MALW 0 score URIBL_DBL_ABUSE_BOTCC 0 Until I can get around to updating I'm considering just nuking the actual tests from the ruleset. Charles > On Jan 8, 2023, at 4:00 PM, joe a <joea-li...@j4computers.com> wrote: > > On 1/8/2023 3:50 PM, joe a wrote: >> SA version 3.4.5 >> Gears are clashing, clutch is slipping, among other things. >> Trying to exclude certain checks, via spamhouse services "by the book" >> When placing these values in local.cf: >> RCVD_IN_ZEN 0 >> RCVD_IN_XBL 0 >> RCVD_IN_PBL 0 >> "spamassassin --lint" complains. Yet SA starts without complaint and seems >> to not run those tests. >> Placing "score" at the beginning of the line makes lint happy and SA seems >> to start fine and also does not run those tests. >> So, one assumes it is a typo in the docs, or, one is expected to infer the >> "score" word. >> Yet I still see this while "skip_rbl_checks 1" (in both above scenarios): >> "RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS RBL: ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE:" >> Which suggests that one runs despite the directive or, I am using the wrong >> one. > > And the answer to the latter is "I had the wrong directive". Which is > obvious. Now. >
